Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LESLY YARELI MENDOZA HURTADO, No. 18-70749 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A208-303-458 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BUMATAY, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges. Petitioner Lesly Yareli Mendoza Hurtado is a native and citizen of Guatemala. She petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. “Because the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision under Matter of Burbano, but also provided its own review of the evidence and the law, we review both the IJ and the BIA’s decision.” Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2010). “We review questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence.” Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation modified). 1. Substantial evidence does not compel reversing the agency’s determination that Mendoza Hurtado is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. “An applicant alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). Mendoza Hurtado’s claim of past persecution depends on a childhood incident in which she saw a “hole” where a classmate’s father had kept a kidnapped girl. The Guatemalan government arrested and convicted the kidnapper. Mendoza Hurtado does not challenge the agency’s determination that she failed to establish that the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to 2 18-70749 protect her. She has therefore waived any argument challenging this conclusion.1 See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020). Nor does substantial evidence compel reversing the agency’s determination that Mendoza Hurtado does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution in Guatemala. Mendoza Hurtado remained in Guatemala for several months after the kidnapping incident without harm. There was no indication that the individuals she feared—the kidnapper and his wife—would harm her in the future, or that relocation is not feasible. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648–49 (9th Cir. 2021). 2. Substantial evidence does not compel reversing the agency’s denial of CAT relief. Mendoza Hurtado has not alleged past torture and has not established that her fear of future harm is well-founded. The country-conditions evidence does not indicate any particularized risk of torture if Mendoza Hurtado were removed to Guatemala. See Ruiz-Colmenares, 25 F.4th at 751–52. PETITION DENIED.2 1 Because this element is dispositive, we need not reach the question of whether Mendoza Hurtado’s proposed social group is cognizable or whether she is a member of that group. 2 The motion for stay of removal (Dkt. No. 1) is denied. 3 18-70749